■ 74 
P43 H3 
lopv 1 



<Lr-^u-<CP^(P^'<P^(P^(j^ 






^o<i=::^^i:=^Q^Q:=^o(^=:^Q:=^Q^^^ 



January 29, !746=7, 0. S. February 9, 1897, N. S. 



Delivered on the 

One Hundred and Fiftieth Birthday 



OF- 



The First Church of Christ 

IN PEPPERELL, 

February 9, 1897, 

BY EMELINE HARRINGTON, 

Minister of the First Parish. 



1897, 

PRESS OF THE PEPPERELL PRINTING COMPANY, 

EAST PEPPERELL, MASS. 






January 29, 1746=7, 0. S. February 9, 1897, N. S. 



ADDRESS 



Delivered on the 



One Hundred and Fiftieth Birthday 



OF 



The First Church of Christ 

IN PEPPERELL, 

February 9, 1897, 



BY EMELINE HARRINGTON, 

Minister of the First Parish. 



1897. 

PRESS OF THE PEPPERELL PRINTING COMPANY, 

EAST PEPPERELL, MASS. 



5^ 






CO PROGRAM. 

""7, Organ Voluntary, "Festival Hymn," 
■— Mrs. JohnO. Bennett 

L, Anthem, "The Earth is the Lord's and the 
^ Fullness Thereof," Choir 

Scripture Selection, Rev. A. J. Rich 

^ Extracts from Church Records, 

Rev. Emeline Harrington 
Selection from Rev. Chas. Babbidge's Cen- 
tennial Address, Rev. Granville Pierce 
Anthem, "Hear me, O Father, Choir 

Address, Rev. Emeline Harrington 

Platform meeting. 

Rev. Geo S. Shaw. 

Rev. A.J. Rich, original poem addressed to Dr. 

Babbidge. 
Rev. Charles Babbidge, D. D. 
Rev. I. F. Porter. 

Rev. Joshua Young, D. D., Message of congrat- 
ulation from the First Church in Groton. 
Mr. N. S. Shattuck. 
Anthem, "Laus Deo, Choir 

Benediction, Rev. Chas. Babbidge, D. D. 

CHOIR. 

Organist, Mrs. John O. Bennett. 

Sopranos, Mesdames Eucj' B. Page, Ida Mason, Laura 

E. Parker. 
Altos, Mesdames Katherine Sh£.ttuck, Maud Mason, 

Jennie R. Drury. 
Tenors, Messrs. Dana Bancroft, Charles F. Spaulding, 

N. S. Shattuck. 
Bassos, Messrs. Walter Drury, George Page, Junius 

Shattuck. 



6 



The first settlements of whites in the region now 
known as Pepperell were made as early as 1720. 
Their nnmbers grew slowly for the next twenty years. 
In 1740 the settlement contained over forty families 
still under the fostering care of Groton. The miles 
between them and their church home seemed especially 
long in bad weather. On this account they desired 
a church in their midst and petitioned for the erection 
of a new parish. 

Their wish was not granted however till 1742. The 
portion lying west of the Nashua river and north of 
the country road as travelled a century and a half 
ago was set off as a distinct precinct and called Groton 
West Parish. ( vSee history of G., P. and S. as before, 
p. 305.) 

The first legal meeting of the new Parish, Jan- 
uary 17th, 1742, provided for necessary expenses by 
voting an assessment of ten pounds. The second 
meeting, held February 16th of the same year, de- 
cided upon building a meeting house. Differences of 
opinion as to the proper location were decided by the 
interference of the "Great and General Court," and 
not until the early part of 1745 was the building 
ready for occupation, though even then unfinished. 
Some time elapsed before the call of the Parish to a 
minister was accepted, but on January 29th, 1746-7, 
O. vS., a church was gathered, and a month later Rev. 
Joseph limerson was ordained and settled over it. 
He probably suggested the name which the town now 
bears when the precinct became a district in 1753. 

The first meeting house served the uses of the 
Parish about twenty-five years. It stood 'upon /his spot 
until 1769, when it was removed, and the present 
building erected in its stead, a monument to the faith- 



fill work of the forefathers. The whole interior ar- 
rangement was altered in 1836, between July 31st 
and October 27th. Repairs were made in 1852, and 
again some seven or eight years ago. 

We can hardly imagine the deprivations and hard- 
ships of those early days. As a precaution against 
Indians it was necessary to carry weapons to church. 
The first building could have been little better than 
a shanty. It was made more complete at intervals as 
the Parish could afford to spend time and money upon 
it, but there are doubts whether it was ever com- 
pleted, and it probably required very slight changes 
to convert it into the barn which was finally burned 
by an incendiary. Great zeal must have been neces- 
sary to keep people warm through the long services that 
were then customary, for stoves were not introduced into 
this church until 1826, and then only against great op- 
position. After that event, the noon-houses, of which 
there were eight within a radius of twenty rods of the 
common, gradually disappeared. In their day however, 
the pleasant chat before those glowing fires helped 
greatly to relieve the tedium of the period between ser- 
vices for those who lived at a distance. 

Fidelity to history compels the admission that the 
congregation which worshipped in this house until the 
secession in 1832 was composed of various elements 
mixed in a proportion which was not wholly peaceful, 
as indicated in the matter of choosing a site for the first 
meeting house, heating the church in 1826, and fre- 
quent disciplining of members, but since that separation, 
the remainder has maintained the utmost internal har- 
mony. 

The division took place during the incumbency of 
the third minister. The peace-loving element, which 



8 



held the balance of power in the parish and secured long 
tenure of ofhce of its ministers, evidently continued in 
possession, for the custom is still maintained. The very 
first minister secured by the church after the secession 
of Mr. Howe and his followers remained in active service 
fifty-three years, and since his retirement, continues 
as Pastor Emeritus, to guide bv his example, rouse by 
his enthusiasm, and cheer by his sympathy, the flock he 
has led so long and faithfully. His successors in the 
active work of the ministry have been Rev. Walter 
Clifford Moore, deceased. Rev. Albert C. White, now of 
Ware, and the present incumbent. The seceders have 
changed ministers eleven times since 1832. 

It appears, from Dr. Babbidge's centennial address, 
portions of which have just been read, that several facts 
were established full fifty years ago. Any denial 
of them now must originate in forgetfulness, in igno- 
rance, or in misconstruction. 

Forgetfulness is improbable — on the part of those 
who were alive and present through that exciting time. 
Ignorance is inexcusable — on the part of those who 
have risked the disturbance of peaceful relations so 
lately existing by reviving the old controversy. Mis- 
construction must be due to obliquity of mental vision 
which it is our aim to correct. 

In brief, the points set forth by Dr. Babbidge in that 
long-since-histoiic document ma}- be summed up thus: — 

1st. The true anniversary of the organization of 
the Church of Christ in Pepperell occurs on February 
Dth, and not on January 29th. 

2nd. To the church connected with the First Parish 
belongs the right to be called the F'irst Church of Christ 
in Pepperell 

(it) Because of the character of the original church 



9 

as defined in accordance with the authority of Jesus ; 

{b) Because of the persistence of that character 
in an unbroken succession of communicants; 

{c) Because the right to the name remained un- 
disputed until some time after the organization of an- 
other church. 

3d. The claim of the Second Church to identity 
with the original church cannot be sustained — 

{a) On the score of believing as the church had 
always believed ; because the creed of the Second Church 
not only differed from the covenant of the founders, but 
it differed from the creed of the First Church in the time 
of Rev. John Bullard, the second minister and immediate 
predecessor of Mr. Howe; 

[b) On the score of numbers; because a few wor- 
shippers as truly constitute a church as do many, and, 
while a majority of the original church had a right to 
withdraw and did so, they had no right to compel others 
to withdraw, and, as a matter of fact, some remained 
faithful to their vows, continuing to worship where they 
had worshipped for years, and maintaining the Christian 
ordinances without interruption. 

{c) On the score of the seceders having taken the 
officers with them; because officers are not essential to 
the existence of a church, and because, had those who 
remained chosen to excommunicate those who with- 
drew, such action would have been within the ecclesias- 
tical power of the church which remained in connection 
with the First Parish, 

Those who withdrew broke their vows. Those 
who remained kept their vows. Those who withdrew 
dissolved the connection of the church only so far as they 
themselves were concerned, without destroying the 
church connection of those who remained. A portion 



10 



denominated the Liberal party desired the minister not 
to refuse exchanges with his liberal neighbors. On the 
occasion of his ordination he expressed willingness to 
respect their wishes, and it was his refusal to continue 
such action that led to the vote in Town meeting so 
often referred to. This vote was in defense of established 
and customary rights, and not in any way a curtailment 
of privilege. Rather than allow the liberals to hear 
neighboring liberal ministers six times during the year 
and bear the expense of such services themselves with- 
out diminishing Mr. Howe's salary, the exclusive party 
withdrew and established an Evangelical Congrega- 
tional Society. 

4th. The cause of division was not injustice toward 
the party that withdrew, but resistance of its attempt to 
oppress the party that remained. 

So much for Dr. Babbidge's address, but the evi- 
dence is all on one side, and the only difhculty is one of 
choice amid such a wealth of valuable material. 

The right of the church connected with the original 
Parish to claim identity with the original church was 
established in 1820 — twelve years before the secession 
in Pepperell — by a decision of the Supreme Court of 
Massachusetts, from which an extract here follows: — 
"As to all civil purposes, the secession of a whole 
church from the parish would be an extinction of the 
church, and it is competent to the members of the parish 
to institute a new church, or to organize one upon the 
old stock if any of it should remain; and their new 
church would succeed to all the rights of the old in re- 
lation to the parish No particular number 

is necessary to constitute a church, nor is there any es- 
tablished (|u<)nim wliich would have a right to manage 
the concerns of tlie bo(l\- It would seem to 



11 



follow from the very structure of such a body as this 
which is a mere voluntary association, that a diminua- 
tion of its numbers will not affect its identity. A church 
may exist in an ecclesiastical sense without any officers. 
And without doubt, in the same sense a church 
may be composed of femes eovert and miners, who have 
no civil capacity. The only circumstance therefore 
w^hich gives a church any legal character is its connec- 
tion with some legally constituted society; and those 
who withdraw from the society cease to be members 
of that particular church." 

[The curious may find this decision complete in 
Massachusetts reports of cases argued and determined in 
the Supreme Judicial Court, Vol. xvi., pp. 503-4. It 
is the "Celebrated Dedham Case."] 

That the identity of this church with the original 
church was generally recognized by people acquainted 
with the circumstances, but living at a distance, is shown 
by the following letter, accompanying the gift of this 
pulpit Bible : 

"Boston, Nov. 17, 1836. 
''Rev. Sir: 

With this you will receive the Holy Bible, in 
two volumes, for the use of the pulpit of the first church 
and society in Pepperell, under your pastoral care, which 
is presented in memor}' of my respected father, the late 
Rev. John Bullard, your predecessor. 
"Most respectfully, 

"ELIZABETH BAvSS. 
"Rev. Charles Babbidge." 

Most of the questions already alluded to are settled, 
you percieve, by the restatement of facts just made — but 
not all. 



12 



"Why stir this matter up at all?" some one asks. 
Why indeed ? JJ^e have not done so. We would never 
have been the first to move in the direction of opening 
an old controversy. The mere hint that there had been 
a misunderstanding was sufficient to hush all reference 
to a possible celebration, made some months ago by a 
new-comer in the First Parish. We would have let the 
anniversary pass unnoticed if others had refrained ; but 
to do so now would argue a lack of right or a lack of 
interest, neither of which exists. 

U7' have not opened the question. If the conse- 
quences of doing so are not wholly pleasant others are 
responsible and not we. Then comes another question: 
"If the organization of the Church of Christ in Pepper- 
ell is to be celebrated, why is it not a Town affair?" And 
again the answer is: To be sure, why not? The Town 
and the Parish were one and the same to begin with. It 
ought to be of interest to all public-spirited citizens. 
But in these days the Town is not a parish, and appears 
to have forgotten its beginnings. Interest in politics is 
not necessarily an interest in religion, though a frue 
n/lcirsf in n/ioioii is a)i ////ercsf in politics. Highways, 
and water supply and lights absorb all the energies of 
the City Fathers. They do not care enough about anti- 
quarian relics to make any effort toward rescuing the 
past from oblivion. Manifestly the impulse toward a 
recognition of such an incident as the organization of a 
church, even though it were the most important event in 
the founding of the Town, is not to be expected from 
them; neither can the citizens at large be looked to for 
the beginning of such a movement, they not having fre- 
quent occasion t ) examine records and verify dates. It 
must start in a church, if at all. It could come with a 
good grace only from the First Church, which refrained 






13 



out of a desire for peace, and misgivings as to how such 
a suggestion would be received in the light of past ex- 
periences. 

Another query: "Is not one festival enough?" 
Yes, if it is a joint celebration in which the rights of all 
interested parties are regarded ; but under existing cir- 
cumstances the arrangement for such an anniversary 
required tact. 

"Why did not the First Parish accept the invitation 
to attend the festival of the Second Church?" 

1st. The day selected was not the anniversary of 
the church. History must be falsified to adopt it. The 
First Church could not celebrate on January 29th with- 
out tacitly admitting unfounded assumptions and with- 
drawing from the position it has occupied ever since 
1832. 

2d. The Second Church chose its own day and its 
own speakers, arranged its owni program, ignoring the 
at least equal interest of the First Church, asking no 
advice or assistance, and intimating no withdrawal from 
the false position taken fifty years ago — that it is The 
(original) Church of Christ in Pepperell. Such being 
the method of proceed ure it could hardly have been ex- 
pected that ordinary self-respect would permit the ac- 
ceptance of its invitation. 

3d. The one person now living of chiefest impor- 
tance in such a celebration — because fourth in succession 
of the ministers of the original church and personally 
connected with the First Church as active pastor for 
fifty-three years, and as Pastor Emerlt.is even to the 
present time, who is among you to-day, with unimpaired 
memory and reason and feeling, revered by all for his 
noble and beautiful life — was not and could not be espec- 
iallv invited to such a celebration. To have asked him 



14 



to be present on January 29tli would have been equiva- 
lent to asking him to retract his address of fifty years 
ago, brand himself a liar, and stigmatize as a usurper 
the church which he then defended. No one had the 
effrontery to do this. For the Church and Parish to 
have accepted that invitation would have been to with- 
draw their countenance from their leader in his age and 
commit an act of baseness of which they are incapable. 

It has been asked also: "Does it matter which is 
the direct successor of the original church?" It did 
matter in 18vS2, w^hen reliance upon a decree of the Su- 
preme Court was necessary to recover from the Second 
Church the records and the communion service which 
you see before you, and restore them to their rightful 
owners, in whose hands they have remained ever since. 
What has happened once ma}' occur again. 

Having answered several questions, the privilege 
may now be granted of asking a few. If it is customary 
to celebrate anniversaries according to the style of 
reckoning time that was in use when the event occurred, 
why is it that the Landing of the Pilgrims which took 
place December 11, 1620, O. S., is commemorated on 
December 22d, N. S.? Why is it that Washington's 
Birthday is February 22d, when every on^ knows 
he was born Fel)ruary 1 Uh, 1732, O. S.? If one persists 
in using the Old vStyle in counting the days, why not in 
numbering t\\Q years also? According to O. S. the year 
began March 25th, instead of January 1st. Then the 
one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of January 29th, 
174B-7, O. S., would be January 29th; 1896-7, O. S., or 
February 9th, 1897, N. S.. 

And again; if the Second Church did not re- 
organize after the secession in 1832, how can its mem- 
bers claim to have aiiv organization, having dis- 



15 



solved that which they previously had by breaking 
their solemn covenant? If on the other hand, an 
organization was effected after the division, it must be 
a nezv organization, and can lay no just claim to the title 
which continued in the possession of the church still 
connected with the First Parish by unbroken succession. 

Another question: Who signed the remonstrance 
in favor of the ordination of Mr. Howe? The remons- 
trance against his ordination was sighed by seventy-nine 
persons, all of whom were voters, with the possible ex- 
ception of one. That these seventj^-nine constituted a 
majority of the Parish, (the Parish and Town were iden- 
tical) is evident from the recognized necessity of re- 
moving their objections before the ordination could pro- 
ceed. Had the one hundred and fort^'-four remonstrants 
in favor of the ordination all been voters the seventy- 
nine against it would have had no force to compel the 
hesitation of the Council. Besides there is every reason 
to believe that the Town did not contain two hundred 
and twenty-three voters. Who then were the one hun- 
dred and forty-four? Were a part of them children ? 
History is silent. 

A letter from the State House, received not long 
ago, inquired how a church claiming to be one hundred 
and fifty years old could have been formed from another 
not half as old. This is indeed a puzzle, but Note K, 
appended to Mr. Andrews discourse, delivered January 
29th, 1847, says: "The Union Church in Groton, with 
its pastor. Rev. Dudley Phelps, was present by invita- 
tion on account of the original relation which subsisted 
between the two churches in Groton and Pcpperell, the 
one having been formed from the other." Recalling 
the fact that the Union Church of Groton was formed 
November 21st, 1826, it is difficult to explain how 



14 



to be present on January 29th would have been equiva- 
lent to asking him to retract his address of fifty years 
ago, brand himself a liar, and stigmatize as a usurper 
the church which he then defended. No one had the 
effrontery to do this. For the Church and Parish to 
have accepted that invitation would have been to with- 
draw their countenance from their leader in his age and 
commit an act of baseness of which the}^ are incapable. 

It has been asked also: "Does it matter which is 
the direct successor of the original church?" It did 
matter in 1832, when reliance upon a decree of the Su- 
preme Court was necessary to recover from the Second 
Church the records and the communion service which 
you see before you, and restore them to their rightful 
owners, in whose hands they have remained ever since. 
What has happened once ma}^ occur again. 

Having answered several questions, the privilege 
may now be granted of asking a few. If it is customary 
to celebrate anniversaries according to the style of 
reckoning time that was in use when the event occurred, 
why is it that the Landing of the Pilgrims which took 
place December 11, 1620, O. S.,is commemorated on 
December 22d, N. S.? Why is it that Wa.' hington's 
Birthday is February 22d, when every on^ knows 
he was born February 11th, 1732, O. S.? If one persists 
in using the Old vStyle in counting the days, why not in 
numbering the ivv?;-.^ also? According to O. S. the year 
began March 25th, instead of January 1st. Then the 
one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of January 29th, 
1746-7, O. S., would be January 29th; 1896-7, O. S., or 
February 9th, 1897, N. S.. 

And again; if the vSecond Church did not re- 
organize after the secession in 1832, how can its mem- 
bers claim to have aj/v organization, ha\-inu dis- 



15 



solved that which they previously had by ])reakiiig 
their solemn covenant? If on the other hand, an 
organization was effected after the division, it must be 
a ;/<:'?r organization, and can lay no just claim to the title 
which continued in the possession of the church still 
connected with the First Parish by unbroken succession. 

Another question: Who signed the remonstrance 
in favor of the ordination of Mr. Howe? The remons- 
trance aoa///s/ his ordination was sighed by seventy-nine 
persons, all of whom were voters, with the possible ex- 
ception of one. That these seventj'-nine constituted a 
majority of the Parish, (the Parish and Town were iden- 
tical) is evident from the recognized necessity of re- 
moving their objections before the ordination could pro- 
ceed. Had the one hundred and forty-four remonstrants 
in favor of the ordination all been voters the seventy- 
nine against it would have had no force to compel the 
hesitation of the Council. Besides there is every reason 
to believe that the Town did not contain two hundred 
and twenty-three voters. Who then were the one hun- 
dred and forty-four? Were a part of them children ? 
History is silent. 

A letter from the State House, received not long 
ago, inquired how a church claiming to be one hundred 
and fifty years old could have been formed from another 
not half as old. This is indeed a puzzle, but Note K, 
appended to Mr. Andrews discourse, delivered January 
29th, 1847, says: "The Union Church in Groton, with 
its pastor, Rev. Dudley Phelps, was present by invita- 
tion on account of the original relation which subsisted 
between the two churches in Groton and Pepperell, the 
one having been formed from the other." Recalling 
the fact that the Union Church of Groton was formed 
November 21st, 1826, it is difficult to explain how 



18 



PARIvSH COMMITTEE. 

George G. Tarbell for 1896-7. 

N. S, vShattuck, 

Harriet E. Richardson. 

CLERK— Edgar W. Blake, 

TREASURER— Charles B. Taft. 

COLLECTOR— Laura E. Parker. 

MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PARISH. 

Rev. Charles Babbidge, Mr. PUijah A. Reed, 

Mr. George T. Bancroft, Mr. Levi Sartelle, 

Mr. Henry Blake, Mr. Benjamin F. Sartelle, 

Mr. G. Dana Bancroft, Mr. John Sartelle, 

Mr. Lorenzo P. Blood, Mr. Nathaniel S. Shattuck, 

Mr. Edgar W. Blr te. Mr. Gtcrge G. Tarbell, 

Mr. Luther Fitch, Mr. William P. Taylor, 

Mr. William F. Heald, Mr. Charles B. Taft, 

Mr. Charles B. Heald, Mr. ChristopherG. Worcester 

Mr. W. B. Page, Mr. Henry Wright, 

Mr. Edwin R. Richardson, Mr. Addison Woodward. 

LADY MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PARISH. 

Mrs. G. Dana Bancroft, Mrs. Elijah A. Reed, 

Mrs. Ivlgar W. Blake. Mrs. Edwin R. Richardson, 

Mrs. Charles Blood, Mrs. Levi Sartelle, 
Mrs. Carrie P'letch^r Greno, Mrs. Harry Shattuck, 

Mrs. William F. Heald, Mrs. Nellie Tarbell, 

Rev. Emeline Harrington, Mrs. Harriet L. Wright. 

Mrs. Walter B. Page, Mrs. L. P'rederick Williams, 

Mrs. J(dinO. Parker, Mrs. Addison Woodward. 
Miss Sarah E. Parker, 



LitJKHKT ur v,unoncoo 



014 079 133 7 



